Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
23 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), xongsmith (3 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,944 Year: 21,980/19,786 Month: 543/1,834 Week: 43/500 Day: 1/42 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Science the Search for Objective Truth in an Objective Reality
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 64 (368474)
12-08-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Woodsy
12-08-2006 12:43 PM


Objective Reality
Objective reality is a reality based on the primacy of existence as opposed to consciousness. Cosciousness exists and is subject to existence rather than the opposite, subjective reality, whereby reality exists as a consequence of consciousness.

In short there is a physical universe with or without consciousness available to perceive it.
I am proposing that such a position is necessarily assumed by science and that this assumption is inherent in it's methods. I am suggesting that science is effectively searching for the true nature of this objective reality.

If it behaves like an objective reality does it matter or not? Good question. If it is all just a matrix style reality does it matter as long as it all seems objectively real?

I would say yes. The truth ultimately does matter to science (and to me!)

The red pill or the blue pill Mr Anderson. Your choice?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Woodsy, posted 12-08-2006 12:43 PM Woodsy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 2:31 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 32 of 64 (368478)
12-08-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 12:30 PM


Re: Success of science
Sorry to bang on but...this does need to be cleared up.

Light is light. We know what light is. Eyes detect light. We know how eyes work. Cameras detect light. We know how cameras work too. If a ghost is "seen" in any physical way it is reflecting or emmitting light. Full stop. Cameras will detect this light as they are designed to do. Eyes and cameras detect the same things.

Your supernatural ghost phenomenon may not be subject to known physical laws but eyes are and so are cameras, not to mention light.

If it is not emmitting light then it was not "seen" by the eyes nor the camera in question.

If it is only detectable by the human not the camera then it is not emmitting or reflecting anything that eyes can detect, as the camera would also detect this, which only leaves us with the possibility that the "vision" was actually internal to the brain in some way and not actually physically there in any way that has any physical relevance at all.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 2:40 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 64 (368488)
12-08-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Straggler
12-08-2006 1:25 PM


Re: Objective Reality
Objective reality is a reality based on the primacy of existence as opposed to consciousness. Cosciousness exists and is subject to existence rather than the opposite, subjective reality, whereby reality exists as a consequence of consciousness.

It kinda sucks for science that the only reality that we, as individuals, are capable of observing is subjective.

In short there is a physical universe with or without consciousness available to perceive it.

Presumably...

I am proposing that such a position is necessarily assumed by science and that this assumption is inherent in it's methods.

Can you show how you arrived at this conclusion because I still don't see why it is neccessary and inherent? Are you saying that science would be impossible without the assumption of an objective reality? Because I don't think it would be...

I am suggesting that science is effectively searching for the true nature of this objective reality.

Theoretically, yes, but as far as applications of science go, no.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 1:25 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 6:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 64 (368489)
12-08-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Straggler
12-08-2006 1:33 PM


Re: Success of science
Sorry to bang on but...this does need to be cleared up.

I'm clear.

Light is light. We know what light is.

So... is it a wave or a particle? :D [/smartass]

But seriously,

I know how light and eyes and cameras work. If the eye can see it then the camera can see it. There are pictures of what's claimed to be ghosts. It is just one example of a broader point I was trying to make (or did make).

If it is not emmitting light then it was not "seen" by the eyes nor the camera in question.

Yes, I know exactly what you are getting at.

Its dumb to have a scientific discussion about what magic powers a ghosts could have.

I think my point was that its illogical to base a lack of belief in the supernatural on the inabilities of science to detect it when science is defining supernatural as unable to be detected. If we did live in the matrix, the scientist would not detect it and if someone had a vision that we were in the matrix then the scientist would not believe them, even though they were desciribing the objective reality. That is why I don't think science is so concerned with the objective reality because it limits what it can consider to be real by its own limitiations and definitions.

If the supernatural is a part of objective reality and science is unable to discover it then science isn't trying to find the objective reality, is it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 1:33 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 3:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 64 (368492)
12-08-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Straggler
12-08-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Success of science
Why are it's predictions more accurate?

Why? I don't know. Possibly, Einstein's model is closer to the "real" model, but I don't know how we could know that for sure, or really, what that would even mean.

Is it conceivable that there could be a theory that could predict every gravitational interraction completely accurately?

It's concievable, sure; I don't know one way or the other whether or not it's possible. Perhaps the only way you can perfectly model the universe is with a universe. But at this point I think we're outside of science as scientists practice it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 12:10 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 7:05 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 64 (368494)
12-08-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Success of science
I don't think its impossible, especially when supernatural, by definition, isn't constrained by natural laws.

No, but light is. Unless you're saying ghosts emit supernatural magic light? Light that somehow is able to detect whether it's about to be absorbed by a human eye or something that is simply like a human eye?

Flights of fancy disclaimered by a willingness to suspend what we know about the universe doesn't strike me as an effective way to determine what is true - rather, it's just a way to make up stuff. And the thing that's almost always true about things that are just made up is that they're false, which is why I think the supernatural is pretty well disproven. If there's no way to know anything about the supernatural except to make up things about it, clearly the supernatural is not something that can be said to exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 12:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 3:02 PM crashfrog has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 64 (368495)
12-08-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 2:55 PM


Re: Success of science
Unless you're saying ghosts emit supernatural magic light?

That's what I meant by: It depends on how good your magic powers are.

Flights of fancy disclaimered by a willingness to suspend what we know about the universe doesn't strike me as an effective way to determine what is true

I agree.

And the thing that's almost always true about things that are just made up is that they're false, which is why I think the supernatural is pretty well disproven.

Well, discussing ghosts on a discussion board and seeing them in person are completely different things. I don't think that all the people who believe in ghosts or claim to have seen them are just making it up. To me, it seems like there is something else out there, something un-natural (or supernatural) in the 'science can't see it' kind of definition.

I think that science's failure to detect is a poor reason for the disbelief. It almost makes science your religion.

If there's no way to know anything about the supernatural except to make up things about it, clearly the supernatural is not something that can be said to exist.

True, but that is not the only way to know things about the supernatural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 2:55 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 64 (368496)
12-08-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 2:40 PM


Re: Success of science
I think my point was that its illogical to base a lack of belief in the supernatural on the inabilities of science to detect it when science is defining supernatural as unable to be detected.

Science isn't defining the supernatural at all, because nothing supernatural has been put forward for science to have to deal with. The only people who have defined supernatural as anything, as far as I'm aware, is Wizards of the Coast:

quote:
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance. Supernatural abilities cannot be dispelled. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be useable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature's Hit Dice.
The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is 10 + 1/2 the creature's HD + the creature's ability modifier (usually Charisma).

(Courtesy the brilliant guys over at Rockstars' Ramblings and the Monster Manual 3.5 edition.)

Even the proponents of the supernatural can't really define what it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 2:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 64 (368497)
12-08-2006 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 3:02 PM


Re: Success of science
I don't think that all the people who believe in ghosts or claim to have seen them are just making it up.

Without a specific experience to explain, any explanations of mine would also be making things up. I've never seen a ghost, and considering I've worked (and lived) in theatres all my life, that's quite noteworthy. (All theatres are haunted.)

But I can say this - anybody who says something like "ghosts can do this" or "ghosts have these powers" is just making things up. Pure invention, pure fantasy. (If we're going to just choose our fantasies about ghosts, then I choose to believe everything the Monster Manual says about them, like their malevolence ability, their residence on the Ethereal Plane, and their +4 turn resistance.)

I think that science's failure to detect is a poor reason for the disbelief.

That's not the only reason. The other reason is that all knowledge of ghosts comes from make-believe, and there is no reason to believe that make-believe is true. (You wouldn't think you would need to tell an adult that.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 3:40 PM crashfrog has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 64 (368503)
12-08-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 3:08 PM


Re: Success of science
Science isn't defining the supernatural at all, because nothing supernatural has been put forward for science to have to deal with.

I understand what you are really saying but this statement could be clarified a little. Science has certainly investigated things that are claimed to be supernatural, its just that they have all been found to be natural in actuality. Things have been put forward to science that have been claimed to supernatural, its just that when science dealt with them, there were found to be, in fact, not supernatural.

The only people who have defined supernatural as anything, as far as I'm aware, is Wizards of the Coast

You know, Wizards of the Cost can provide some very useful definition IMO. People I talk to in RL and I use their definitions for fantasy concepts in some of our discussions.

Even the proponents of the supernatural can't really define what it is.

Yeah, it is a slippery slope. Its just that I've had experiences (that I don't want to get into here) that I can't write off because there is no scientific basis for them. From my point of view, science is missing an entire aspect of objective reality.


But I can say this - anybody who says something like "ghosts can do this" or "ghosts have these powers" is just making things up.

I agree, but it can be useful in arguing the possibilities of things.

(If we're going to just choose our fantasies about ghosts, then I choose to believe everything the Monster Manual says about them, like their malevolence ability, their residence on the Ethereal Plane, and their +4 turn resistance.)

Don't you think the Ethereal Plane could exist outside of scientific observation? And with ghosts temporarily entering the Prime Material Plane, we would get reports and observations similiar to what we do hear from people. Even though its pure fantasy, I think it is a pretty good model.

I think that science's failure to detect is a poor reason for the disbelief.

That's not the only reason. The other reason is that all knowledge of ghosts comes from make-believe, and there is no reason to believe that make-believe is true.

Well, not all knowledge. Also, you have your incredultiy...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 3:08 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 64 (368506)
12-08-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 3:40 PM


Re: Success of science
Don't you think the Ethereal Plane could exist outside of scientific observation?

No, of course not. What do you have to be to cast ethereal jaunt? Something like 6th level? You just pop yourself into the Ethereal Plane with any number of spells that do that, and you can make all the scientific observations you care to.

The issue here is that all the fantasy stuff described by the Dungeons and Dragons rules are only fantastic to us. To the deizens of that world, displacer beasts and blink dogs aren't animals with magic powers; they're animals with the powers that they have and that's completely natural. A beholder's eye rays are no more "supernatural" to the beholder than an electric eel is a supernatural creature to us. It's a normal part of our world; magic and the supernatural is an entirely natural part of that world, and perfectly ameinable to "scientific" study. That's how people become wizards, after all. (That's why wizards cast spells from their Intelligence attribute.)

And with ghosts temporarily entering the Prime Material Plane, we would get reports and observations similiar to what we do hear from people.

Sure. But you'd also hear reports that you don't hear in reality - reports like "I cast dimensonal anchor to force the ghost to manifest, and then I stabbed it with my +1 ghost touch shortsword."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 4:16 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 64 (368512)
12-08-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 3:54 PM


Re: Success of science
Don't you think the Ethereal Plane could exist outside of scientific observation?

No, of course not. What do you have to be to cast ethereal jaunt? Something like 6th level? You just pop yourself into the Ethereal Plane with any number of spells that do that, and you can make all the scientific observations you care to.

Oh, I was thinking that it could exist in our world today where we don't have those magic powers. Science, as we practice, would be unable to investigate it. It would completely miss it. But whatever.

The issue here is that all the fantasy stuff described by the Dungeons and Dragons rules are only fantastic to us.

That's a great point. A ghost popping in an out of existence would be acting completely naturally to the ghost. It would only be a scientific impossibility to the scientists, who have found no evidence of it, and I think the ghost could be there doing his ghostly duties all the while the scientists are just refusing to believe he even exists.

I still think that there could be a whole aspect of objective reality that science is unable to detect because of its initial asumptions and methods. There could be things that exist outside of scientific detection that behave according to their own, non-scientific laws/rules. They might not be supernatural in the context of the definition that the word implies, but the things that word describes could exist and science might never know about them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 3:54 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Neutralmind, posted 12-08-2006 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 4462 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 43 of 64 (368513)
12-08-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 4:16 PM


Re: Success of science
Catholic Scientist
There could be things that exist outside of scientific detection that behave according to their own, non-scientific laws/rules.

Something like dark matter perhaps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 4:16 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM Neutralmind has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 64 (368516)
12-08-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Neutralmind
12-08-2006 4:21 PM


Re: Success of science
Something like dark matter perhaps?

Perhaps. We haven't detected dark matter at all, have we? Its just fits into the equation so it must exist, right?

Is dark matter supernatural, by definition?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Neutralmind, posted 12-08-2006 4:21 PM Neutralmind has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Neutralmind, posted 12-08-2006 4:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 46 by JonF, posted 12-08-2006 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 7:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 4462 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 45 of 64 (368520)
12-08-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Success of science
Catholic Scientist
Perhaps. We haven't detected dark matter at all, have we? Its just fits into the equation so it must exist, right?

I guess that's close enough to the truth.

Is dark matter supernatural, by definition?

It's doesn't consist of atoms so I would think so.

Ok, enough offtopic for now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019